THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SANGITABEN MUKESHBHAI ISHVARBHAI VASAVA — 3315/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030070122025
Filing Number
3315/2025
Filing Date
22-Aug-2025
Registration No
3315/2025
Registration Date
22-Aug-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199060250328
Police Station
PANOLI POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANGITABEN MUKESHBHAI ISHVARBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 3315/2025 The court acquitted respondent Sangitaben Mukeshbhai Ishvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65 for alleged unlicensed liquor sales. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case, noting that the panchnama (witness statement) lacked proper authentication—the panchas (witnesses) were police officers rather than independent citizens, and critical details about the seized sample and laboratory testing report were missing or unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3315/2025
Case Summary: 3315/2025 The court acquitted respondent Sangitaben Mukeshbhai Ishvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65 for alleged unlicensed liquor sales. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case, noting that the panchnama (witness statement) lacked proper authentication—the panchas (witnesses) were police officers rather than independent citizens, and critical details about the seized sample and laboratory testing report were missing or unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts